His plan is to give each American $1000 but don`t you think it is more fair to give them unlimited money like the FED?
I really think that is what we should do, Anyone in the FED cannot create any money, and the rest of the people can create unlimited.
Let`s reverse engineer it for at least 48 years like they have done to use since 1971.
This is the net result of your "brilliant" idea:
Everyone becomes poor, VERY poor.
Unlimited is garbage, you still don't get it and keep repeating it like a parrot. Why, don't you come and live here so you can understand the results of "unlimited"?
The only salvageable phrase from you is this:
Anyone in the FED cannot create any money.
Oh and remember about giving homes to the homeless? Guess what would happen if you give $1000 to each American... Think: they won't invest it, at least not the vast majority, especially the impoverished...
So I'll say it to you again until it enters your brain (if that doesn't work, do come and live here):
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
We've had tons and tons of threads about why UBI could be vital. But the one thing that I and Theymos have said is that if you want something like UBI to flourish, and to not be a burden on the taxpayers -- YOU NEED TO REMOVE EVERY OTHER SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAM.
Everything. Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, housing benefits, ETC. Everything from the federal level all the way down to the local level.
If you're going to be spending this amount of money, in the ballpark of $12,000 per year per person in the US (obvious restrictions of within a certain income, and then cost of living increases and decreases)
This system can work, but everyone has to be onboard for it. As it would eliminate a large amount of government jobs that are unnecessary (think of all the people handling SS payments, medicare, housing, food stamps, etc) and replace it with a simple system with a much smaller amount of employees.
I agree with you here, incidentally the very same thing was proposed here, sadly with little support. This is the next best after just don't give anything to anyone AND eliminate all the programs. But if you insist in having the State spending money "for the poor" (ahem), then at least this does remove part of the corruption and bureaucracy. You see, in "theory" all the money goes to the "poor", but in reality... only a fraction makes it, and depending on country, that fraction can only be smaller (ie. less or more corrupt). It never works like socialists dream, the humans tasked to "redistribute" the wealth redistribute it a bit too much towards themselves, always... Or do a very poor job, benefiting their friends and family first, their city, party, whatever, leaving somebody behind. This is a human condition and cannot be fixed.
Why i don't believe in UBI? It doesn't level the playing field, it doesn't give people a "second chance". Those that desperately need it will spend it right away. Does that don't, will actually invest it and hopefully become richer, so at the end of the day, you did nothing. You fed a few poor for some days, and helped the rich become richer. This is very similar to inflation.
State intervention usually makes things worse, not better. Again theory and reality are worlds apart. Get a good economy running and everyone can fed by themselves. Deflation is part of the solution, read
Mises and the Austrian economists for the answer.
(Well fed) socialists always have well intentions (well most always), but alas the humans don't behave as they should... "
Because the system made them so", but the "
New Man" proposed by Che Guevara never comes.
